,D CARS IN _LAW_ ---a

The King's Ferrari as featured in the July 1988 Car Collector story by Ala Boe.By LAWRENCE SAVELL

THE CASE

OF THE

KING LEOPOLD

FERRARI

King Leopold III ruled Belgiumuntil his abdication in 1950.His resignation reportedly was

in response to continued domesticdispleasure with his apparently prema-ture surrender to Hitler in May 1940.

Leaving his son to carry on the"family business," Leopold returned tothe simple pleasures of life, such as200mph automobiles. One of the ex-King's favorites was a custom-designed375 Plus Pinin Farina cabriolet built in1954 and known worldwide as the"King Leopold Ferrari." (Pinin Farinawas the designer; the "375 Plus" wasFerrari's racing engine at the time.)This high-powered, 12-cylinder con-vertible coupe was hailed as "one ofthe most beautiful and elegant openbodied Ferraris ever created."

Characteristically, Leopold gave upthe car, and it passed into privatehands. Wayne Golomb bought it, indeplorable mechanical condition, inBelgium in 1969 and shipped it toIllinois. There he, his brother Larry,his parents Genevieve and Raymond,and his girl friend Graceia Voyles spentover a decade restoring the car to itsformer majesty.

Robert M. Lee (the near-namesakeof another famous surrenderor), a biggame hunter and exotic automobilecollector, wanted the car. However, inFebruary 1985 Wayne told him it wasnot for sale. When Lee asked howmuch it would take to buy it, Waynequoted $275,000 (which he apparentlythought so high no one would beinterested). Lee counter-offered$175,000; Wayne said no.

The hunter continued to pursue hisquarry. On October 11, 1985, Lee of-fered Wayne $200,000, then $210,000;

Wayne said no. On the 12th, Leeoffered $225,000; Wayne said no. Onthe 15th Lee offered to split the differ-ence; Wayne said no. On the 16th Leemade an offer he thought Waynecould not refuse: the $275,000.Wayne, however, did not say "Iaccept:" The parties disagreed aboutwhat he did say. Wayne claimed hesaid he would take the offer to hisparents to see whether they approved.Although Lee did not claim Waynegave an unequivocal "yes," or even arenewed offer to sell at any price, heinsisted that Wayne mentioned nothingabout his parents' approval.

Lee flew to Chicago on October 17to pick up the keys. Wayne told Lee tomake out four checks (for Voyles andthree of the Golombs, excludingLarry).

Lee did so.

However,

Raymond and Genevieve could notbear to part with the King LeopoldFerrari. On October 21, Wayne sentLee a letter advising that "after talkingwith [his parents], the car will not besold" and that he was returning thechecks.

Lee sued Voyles and the fourGolombs, contending that Waynebroke his contract and should beordered to turn over the car.

On March 30, 1990, The UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the SeventhCircuit affirmed a trial court decision infavor of Voyles and the Golombs.

At trial, a magistrate had found thatno contract had been formed. WhileWayne had made an offer of $275,000,Lee had not accepted it.

Lee's

counter-offer had rejected the originaloffer, which had expired and couldnot be "accepted" later. Wayne hadrejected all of Lee's increasing bids.

When Lee finally bid $275,000, therewas no offer on the table. Wayne hadnot accepted the bid of $275,000 buthad said he was waiting for his parents'approval. His asking for four checkssupported his claim that the rest of thefamily had a role to play.

The court came to the same conclu-sion under "the statute of frauds." Thisrefers to a celebrated English lawrequiring documentary proof of certaintransactions; nearly all states have aversion of that requirement. Under theUniform Commercial Code, adopted inIllinois, a contract for the sale of goodsworth more than $500 "5s not enforce-able _ . . unless there is some writingsufficient to indicate that a contract forsale has been made between theparties and signed by the parry againstwhom enforcement is sought."

Although Lee peppered Wayne withpaper, including letters summarizingtheir purported "agreement," Waynesigned none of these. Not until theletter of October 21 had Wayne putpen to paper, and that letter deniedthat a contract had been made. Thus,there had not been any agreementsigned in writing by the person Leesought to bind.

As the court advised, "Those seekinga royal car for their own collectionshad best negotiate with all fourGolombs next time."

Lawrence Savell is a graduate ofCornell University and the University of

Michigan Law Scbool and practices withChadbourne & Parke in New York City.

This column provides generalh#bnnation and is not intended as asubstituteforconsullirtg an attorney.

46

JUNE 1091 • CAR COLLECTOR